Uniting anti-Bolshevik Marxists and Anarchists

[UltraLeftGerry]

I feel that I am almost an anarchist but I subscribe to Marx's analysis of society (Note: Bakunin himself accepted most of the ideas of historical materialism). Also, Rosa Luxembourg, Anton Pannekoek and Paul Mattick are huge influences on me. I do not believe in vanguards, leaders or any type of non-democratic post revolutionary institutions or organizations. I believe that the proletariat must immediately smash the bourgeois state and work to establish a classless society.
I realize that my position seems to be a minority position. Most seem to be either anarchists or Leninists. Obviously I instantly reject the Leninists and their Stalinist, Trotskyist and Maoist offspring. What I feel needs to be done to regain an unity of the revolutionary left, an unity not seen since the First International is that anti-vanguard Marxists and Anarchists must come and discuss creating some kind of united front. I know there may be problems, but I think that the original split in the IWMA had as much to do with the stubborn attitudes of Marx and Bakunin as it did with theory. Much as occured since that day. We can learn from this defeat (and the left has suffered many defeats) and move on. In fact I think that trying to unify as much as the revolutionary anti-authoritarian left as possible (primitivists need not apply) should be our #1 priority. I'd like to hear the opinion of others on this issue, especially anarchists as I think many of the ultra-left marxists support these plans.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:26 AM
I realize that my position seems to be a minority position.
It's not necessarily a minority opinion. Not within the revolutionary left at least.

Where are you from?

[UltraLeftGerry]

The first colony of the U.S. empire, err I mean Canada. :P

[YKTMX]

It's always funny to see Rosa being appropriated by the ultra-left.

They probably think the only thing she ever wrote was a couple of pamphlets criticising Lenin and the Bolsheviks.


Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I consider myself a bolshevik and anti-stalinism and also see myself as closer politically to anarchists and syndicalists than to maoists and stalinists. It is a straw-man argument made by many anarchists that parties mean revolution by the party in the name of the workers. I oppose this and think that the class istelf has to take power, not a party, but that parties and organization will be important tools for workers to take power. I am opposed to top-down socialism from a party, gurella coup, or parlementary socilaists "giving" power to the workers from on high. But I do believe that workers will have to enforce a time of class rule over society to make sure that there isn't a capitalist counterrevolution from outside or a burocratic countrrevolution from inside.

Aside from the most beligerent stalinists, I think that all people who want a working class revolution should work together and debate out their ideas. What, you want a popular front to oppsoe other revolutionaries? That's just silly in a nonrevolutionary situation and potentially disasterous in a revolutionary situation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:43 PM
It's always funny to see Rosa being appropriated by the ultra-left.

They probably think the only thing she ever wrote was a couple of pamphlets criticising Lenin and the Bolsheviks.


Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism.


Letters criticizing Lennin and vica-versa, but they debated as committed revolutionaries should. As serious revolutionaries we shouldn't automatically think that one particular -ism has all the answers and that anyone who disagrees with our traddition is automatically incorrect. Debates and arguments will help us all move forward as long as the debates remain political, historical, and tactical and not sectarian.

[UltraLeftGerry]

Gravedigger:
Aside from the most beligerent stalinists, I think that all people who want a working class revolution should work together and debate out their ideas. What, you want a popular front to oppsoe other revolutionaries? That's just silly in a nonrevolutionary situation and potentially disasterous in a revolutionary situation.

I mean a united front of revolutionaries opposing capitalism, not authoritarian leftists. Since I believe the Leninist project only advances capitalism in backward countries, and given the disdain for authoritarian structures in the advanced countries, we do not have to actively oppose any group, but I don't think we should necessarily be working hand in hand with the RCP for example. Some say that's quite sectarian, if it is so be it. My goal is ultra-democratic workers councils with an entire class in administering society, and they want a dictatorship of the party. Working with a party with like the RCP is working with a possibly new exploitive class of bureaucrats. Honestly if there was a revolutionary situation and the RCP or whatever made a grab for power, I doubt they would last long, and frankly I have no clue how revolutionary these parties actually are in such a situation. They have become breeding grounds for careerists.

I'm going to respond to YKTMX in a bit, but I have some other things to take care of at the moment.

[UltraLeftGerry]

YouKnowTheyMurderedX: It's always funny to see Rosa being appropriated by the ultra-left.

They probably think the only thing she ever wrote was a couple of pamphlets criticising Lenin and the Bolsheviks.


I recognize that Luxembourg was not running around announcing that Lenin & Co. were a bunch of proto-bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and she commended them for being daring enough to seize power. Most on the left, especially during the 1917-1920 phase were supportive of the Bolsheviks. There are cases of anarchists (though Russian anarchists felt differently) supporting the Bolsheviks (initially). Given the historical circumstances it would have seemed to most that a new age was dawning. It wasn't until leftists like Emma Goldman and Bertrand Russell reported on conditions in Russia that some leftists began to sour on the whole deal. I am not going to speculate on what would have happened if Rosa had lived another ten years. The KAPD which split from the KPD seems to have been attempting to carry out the old Spartacist program while the KPD became bolshevized. The KAPD full of ultra-left types like Ruhle and Mattick who support Luxembourg and are quite anti-Leninist. It basically comes down to this: Luxembourg is quite clearly to the left of Bolshevism, how much further to the left is open to speculation. She had been critical of RSDLP methods since 1904. If one reads Lenin's Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder that Lenin himself is not endeared to the mass party that the KAPD wishes to build. Let's look at some quotes that show that Leninists/Trostskyists (Stalinists and Maoists won't like it either, but personally I find that orthodox Leninists and Trotskyists are not quite as divorced from reality as the Stalin worshipping crew) are not going to find much in Luxembourg that they'll like.


Lenin seems to slight this fact when he presents in his book (page 140) the opinion that the revolutionary Social Democrat is nothing else than a "Jacobin indissolubly joined to the organization of the proletariat, which has become conscious of its class interests."

For Lenin, the difference between the Social Democracy and Blanquism is reduced to the observation that in place of a handful of conspirators we have a class-conscious proletariat. He forgets that this difference implies a complete revision of our ideas on organization and, therefore, an entirely different conception of centralism and the relations existing between the party and the struggle itself.

Blanquism did not count on the direct action of the working class. It, therefore, did not need to organize the people for the revolution. The people were expected to play their part only at the moment of revolution. Preparation for the revolution concerned only the little group of revolutionists armed for the coup. Indeed, to assure the success of the revolutionary conspiracy, it was considered wiser to keep the mass at some distance from the conspirators. Such a relationship could be conceived by the Blanquists only because there was no close contact between the conspiratorial activity of their organization and the daily struggle of the popular masses.
Luxembourg, from Organizational Questions of Russian Social Democracy (aka Leninism or Marxism?)

Of course Lenin wants nothing to do with mass based parties in the tradition of Luxembourg. He tries to deny that such a divide between the leaders and the led even exists.


The mere presentation of the question—"dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of the class; dictatorship (party) of the leaders, or dictatorship (party) of the masses?"—testifies to most incredibly and hopelessly muddled thinking. These people want to invent something quite out of the ordinary, and, in their effort to be clever, make themselves ridiculous. It is common knowledge that the masses are divided into classes, that the masses can be contrasted with classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, with categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that as a rule and in most cases—at least in present-day civilised countries—classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders. All this is elementary.


To go so far, in this connection, as to contrast, in general, the dictatorship of the masses with a dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd, and stupid.

-From "Left Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder: "Left-Wing" Communism in Germany The Leaders, the Party, the Class, the Masses

So the lefts in Germany see a distinction between the masses and the party while Lenin does not. I don't see why Luxembourg is any value to you except as a relgious symbol of matyrdom. The question of the party is essential to Leninism and how it seeks to create the revolution. The mass based party of the German left stands in stark contrast. I don't believe in the "monolithic" party but even anarchists have organizations which agitate and educate. I don't think I would strive to create a mass based party like Luxembourg did, however her stressing of democracy, her views on the general strike and her dialectic of spontaneity is why I uphold her as a true liberating figure.

[redstar2000]

I enthusiastically welcome initiatives like that proposed by UltraLeftGerry...with the caution that a new "ultra-left" should not try to "copy" the ultra-left of the 1920s.

Some of those folks had some good ideas...but also some ideas that were perhaps "not so good".

In addition, it's not a good idea to just set up another "Left Museum" which has different wax figures than the Lenin Museum.

A new ultra-left should be really new...or at least as much so as possible. What did Marx, Bakunin, or whoever, have to say that "sounds like it was written yesterday"? That's truly relevant to our era? That we can use?

Finally, it must be recognized that a good deal of patience will be required to "make this happen". There are life-long habits that must be broken.

You know: watching anarchists and Marxists "trade sneers" as if it were still 1872. :o

It will take a lot of "coaxing" to bring some of these folks together in an atmosphere of solidarity.

And it may be necessary to try this kind of initiative more than once before it starts to "catch on".

But it's something that I think, sooner or later, will happen...because people will want it to happen in their own class interests.

Here are a few suggestions...

The Convergence of Marxism and Anarchism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094664165&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

A New Type of Communist Organization (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[UltraLeftGerry]

I enthusiastically welcome initiatives like that proposed by UltraLeftGerry...with the caution that a new "ultra-left" should not try to "copy" the ultra-left of the 1920s.

Ultimately what will make or break this kind of movement is the ability for us to see where we must adjust to new situations but at the same time also pay attention to the lessons of the past. Far too often some discard what history can teach us, however at the same time some do not realize that the contemporary world poses new challenges that must be met in new ways. It is a difficult balance. This is why I do not believe one individual can hold all the answers. No one is divine, it is better that the masses work out problems. Leaders, especially those who can point to some "success" have a difficult time adapting to historical changes. As much as I dislike Chairman Bob and the RCP at least they try to present themselves as looking at things in a new way (or perhaps this is an example of their demagoguery in order to appeal to youths). Those leaders who are still around that existed before the New Left, (ie Ted Grant) seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the modern world. Chomsky pointed out that the frustrated elites of Western Leninist parties made a seemless transition into the elites of Western capitalism (David Horowitz, Irving Kristol etc.). If one becomes too obsessed that they alone have all the answers they will become ineffective or counter-revolutionary over time.

[ComradeOm]

Well you see the problem here is that we have two fundamentally opposed ideologies. Let’s face it, the relationship between Marxism and anarchism hasn’t changed all that much since Marx and Bakunin were slinging polemics at each other. Marxists remain condiserably more realistic/authorthian (depending to whom you listen) than their anarchist comrades while the latter continue to disavow the state in all its forms.

Perhaps that will change. If so I’d be interested if anyone could reconcile the two sides to that issue. Especially while keeping on board some of Lenin’s work. That could be considered the crux of the issue as, despite Redstar’s best efforts, I’d imagine that the considerable majority of Marxists today are reluctant to discard a century of experience and theory.

But if such a marriage emerges then so be it. Every so often a new spin is put on Marx’s theories that makes people sit up and take notice. Maybe this will be the next one.

On a slightly related issue, what’s the common anarchist position on forcing revolution where the material conditions are not yet perfect? I’d imagine that will be another stumbling block.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeOm
That could be considered the crux of the issue as, despite Redstar’s best efforts, I’d imagine that the considerable majority of Marxists today are reluctant to discard a century of experience and theory.

Well you might be right...at least for a while.

But insofar as that "century of experience and theory" has resulted in catastrophic failure, what can such "Marxists" do?

The Trotskyists can "blame everything on Stalin"...perhaps a clue to what lingering appeal they may still have in some western European countries.

But if present trends continue, the very idea of a "professional elite" running either a revolutionary movement or a post-capitalist society will become increasingly out of the question.

Those "Marxists" who desperately cling to "visions of 1917" (or "1949") will become increasingly isolated and irrelevant....rather like those strange people in France today who want to "restore the monarchy".

As long as this remains a "struggle in words", it's possible for people whose brains are stuck somewhere back in the last century to mount occasionally plausible-sounding arguments.

But when (or if) they actually go out into the real world and tell people that they "must follow US", the dis-connect between their "vision" of the world and the real world itself blows up in their faces.

They must either abandon the 20th century or give up any hope of having any political significance in this century.

I sometimes fear that the very word "Marxism" has itself become irreparably damaged by the 20th century Leninist perversions.

We may end up using the phrase historical materialism to cover the genuinely valid ideas of what used to be called "Marxism".

Just as we may need new words to salvage the genuinely revolutionary aspects of anarchism from all the debris of the last century.

I think every sensible person in the west realizes that we need "something completely different" in the way of a real revolutionary movement that actually stands a real chance of overthrowing the despotism of capital.

So-called "updated versions" of Leninism, social democracy, utopian socialism, bourgeois liberalism, etc., etc., are simply worthless.

To build something really new that would really work...that's one hell of a big job!

It would be...well, world changing.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[SonofRage]

I think we should work together too, and I'm in two groups which have anti-authoritarians from both the Anarchist and Marxist traditions as members:

The Direct Action Tendency (http://www.actiontendency.net)
Bring the Ruckus (http://www.agitatorindex.org)

[kurt]

I'm willing to work with anarchists, and I'm a marxist. Most ultra-left marxists and anarchists get along.

[Cyber Communist]

SonofRage:

I saw the two links you posted.

Despite being in Britain, I do make an effort to follow the developments of the revolutionary socialist/communist/anarchist movement in North America.

Like Britain, the majority of the revolutionary left has either gone down the path of reformism and compromise with the 'social democrats'/centre-liberal left or has gone into self imposed isolation, seclusion from reality and on a path of eventual irrelevance.

This can be seen in the U$A with many on the alleged revolutionary left siding with the Democrat Party and the likes of John Kerry and a few liberal (yet labelled as radicals in the U$) celeberaties, especially over the narrow and petty minded activism of just opposing Bush and the neo-conservatives, as if they were the only segment to make up the U$ capitalist ruing class.

In Britain it is not much better, as many on the revolutionary left have just limited their activism to just demanding that Tony Blair leave office, in effect holding the same demand that the ultra-reformist gang that hangs around the British finance minister, Gordon Brown, or the Liberal Democrat Party, has.

The opposition to the Iraq war is in the main led by the liberal and pacifist elements, both of whom never highlight the nature of imperialism or the class interests that imperialism serves in relation to the global capitalist system.

The point being that the authentic revolutionary left, based on a class analysis of society and always acts in relation to the interests of the working class in the class struggle, is very small and very weak at this moment in time in both North America and certain European countries, Britain in particular.

The most vocal groups I see and hear in the U$ are the RCP (with all the fronts that Avakian controls) and the WWP (A.N.S.W.E.R. anti war coalition, which has made moves to approach the Democrat Party).

Even so, these two groups (RCP and WWP) are tiny in comparison to the total population of the U$ working class or the minimum size needed for a revolutionary organisation to pose any real threat to the ruling capitalist class.

There is much work needed on both sides of the Atlantic, for us to get even near the task of a workers revolution.

However, I hope when the day comes, groups like the Direct Action Tendancy and the Rukus are around to contribute.

I would like to ask you what is the official ideology and policy position of the SPUSA and what is the SPUSA view on the capitalist state and the need for a workers revolution?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The SPUSA barely has a position. It's made up mostly of bourgeois-liberal reformists, with a few miniscule revolutionary tendencies (like those of SonOfRage).

SPUSA Statement of Principles (http://www.sp-usa.org/principles.html)
SPUSA Platform (http://www.sp-usa.org/platform/)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The most vocal groups I see and hear in the U$ are the RCP (with all the fronts that Avakian controls) and the WWP (A.N.S.W.E.R. anti war coalition, which has made moves to approach the Democrat Party).

The WWP doesn't control A.N.S.W.E.R. any more. When the PSL broke from the WWP they took A.N.S.W.E.R. with them.

The WWP now controls Troops Out Now.

RCP has NION and The World Can't Wait -- both of which are fairly small.

I think the biggest coalition right now is United For Peace & Justice, which is controlled by the reformist, Democrat supporters of the CPUSA.

If most of the people that answer the calls of these front groups to protest against the war knew they were made by communists I think the numbers would look a lot different. ;)

[Amusing Scrotum]

The Anarchist movement certainly appears to be "doing more" and I think there will come a time within the next century when we Marxists are practically begging to be included.

Personally I think the Anarchists would have every right to tell us to "fuck off." After all, thousands of Anarchists were killed by "Communist" revolutionaries. I can't think of a single "Communist" "revolution" in the last century that didn't murder Anarchists afterwards.

Though there seems to be a lot of Anarchists on this board who uphold at least parts of Marx's work. This surely means that some "coalition" between the Marxist and Anarchist camps could happen. Though I'll believe it when I see it.


On a slightly related issue, what’s the common anarchist position on forcing revolution where the material conditions are not yet perfect? I’d imagine that will be another stumbling block.

I think the answer is in the question. As we have discussed, at great lengths in the other thread (I'll get back to it when I have more time). You can't have a proletarian revolution when the conditions are not there for a proletarian revolution.


I’d imagine that the considerable majority of Marxists today are reluctant to discard a century of experience and theory.

Well you know that I am more than happy to discard the century of "experience" that produced Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist etc. theory. ^_^

[PRC-UTE]

There have been Marxists and a small number of anarchists existing side by side in the ranks of the IRSM as it's mutli-tendencied. Admittedly, it's not easy to pull off at times...

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Cyber [email protected] 3 2005, 05:17 AM

I would like to ask you what is the official ideology and policy position of the SPUSA and what is the SPUSA view on the capitalist state and the need for a workers revolution?
It doesn't have an official ideology and the problem, which others have pointed out, is that it's multi-tendency nature has antagonistic currents together in the same party.

I do all my political work in the context of the IWW, the Direct Action Tendency, and Bring the Ruckus. At this point I'm not sure whether I'm going to renew my dues in the SP-USA when they expire at the end of this month. Although there are people in the SP-USA I respect tremendously, I don't know if my loyalty to them is worth my spending the little money I have these days on dues for a party which I don't really get anything out of...especially since DAT has non-SP members as well so I don't need to be an SP member to be comrades with SP-USA members who share my politics.

We'll see.

[YKTMX]

It wasn't until leftists like Emma Goldman and Bertrand Russell reported on conditions in Russia that some leftists began to sour on the whole deal.

I don't take those two people seriously.


Chomsky pointed out that the frustrated elites of Western Leninist parties made a seemless transition into the elites of Western capitalism (David Horowitz, Irving Kristol etc.).

Horowitz was never a member of a Leninist party, never mind in the 'elite'. So, that's just nonsense.

As for your posts about the nature of the party, suffice to say that I think people should read the whole books so as to get a proper framing and context of the debate.



The Anarchist movement certainly appears to be "doing more" and I think there will come a time within the next century when we Marxists are practically begging to be included.

Really? Like what? Anarchists have no base, and are never going to have, in the working class. They'll always have some influence amongst young, radical, middle class 'activists' - but I doubt I'll ever be 'begging' to hang around with them. In fact, if I'm at a movement event and I see or hear them, I want to chew my own arm off - it's like a chemical reaction. An in built working class antipathy to the petty bourgeois, lifestyleism of those fuckers.

If you want to alert me to some other 'anarchist movement' I'm not aware of, please do.

P.S I once had an hour long debate with an Anarchist because he saw me drinking a bottle of Pepsi. He said I was 'perpetuating class society' by doing so. He had went to private school and then Cambridge...

I don't like the way they speak, I don't like how they dress, I don't like how they behave. I don't want anything to do with them.



I can't think of a single "Communist" "revolution" in the last century that didn't murder Anarchists afterwards.


There has only been one Communist revolution in the last century, in which the Anarchists played a not insignificant part. Sadly, for them, as seems to be in their nature, they ended up heading over to the other side when it came to the crunch. Shame.


Well you know that I am more than happy to discard the century of "experience" that produced Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist etc. theory

But, as I'm sure you're aware, people like you represent a small minority of the movement. And it's not because 'we' are some kind of entrenched elite - who RS expects to 'die out'. Working class people who break with the ruling ideology, all over the world, come to 'Leninism' because it represents the truth of their actual experience. T

Here's an earlier post I did on the matter:

First, Marx said that the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class. This is fundamental. Most workers most of the time accept these ideas - some may sway left or right, some have a "collection" of disparate or contrary views, but basically they accept these ideas almost without thinking.

The Leninist conception of the party is a response to this basic fact. What it says is that for those minority of workers who have broken with capitalism, not neccessarily completely towards Marxism, but who have nevertheless, in the course of the class struggle, come to reject ruling ideology, a party is needed. That is the starting point of the socialist party - a place were the class conscious workers can discuss and "solidify" their views - or, to use the jargon, become "cadreised".

The party runs along the lines of democratic centralism. Now, there is probably more bollocks written about democratic centralism than any other Marxist theory - some even blaming it for Stalinism!

The practice of democratic centralism basically says that everything in the political and economic world should be fully discussed within the party. When the party comes to its decision, the "line" taken is the "party line", which means that even those members who argued against the position taken need to publicly accept it. Now, this doesn't mean these people will be victimised or "brainwashed" to support that view, it just means they need to sumbit the will of the majority of their comrades. Obviously if they cannot then they are entitled to leave the party.

This is not a "totalitarian" blueprint. Think about the practice of unions, and particuarly strike action. If 66% of the union membership votes to withdraw its labour, then that motion is passed. Now, does the 33% who voted against strike action not have to strike as well? Of course they do, or the the strike would be completely ineffectual. This is "democratic centralism". Nothing more, nothing less.

You can accept this: or can read some anarchist fairytale about the "omnipotent" leader who terrorizes his genteel membership into accepting some ludicrous policy.

Secondly, Marx said that the emacipation of the working class is the act of the working class. The Leninist party, by organizing the most class conscious workers, along with other groups such as student, intellectuals etc, aims to give the class struggle focus - a revolutionary focus. This party should be the focus of the struggle, pushing it forward in times of vaccillation or compromise, always arguing that the revolution has to the act of the masses, not a dedicated few. This is revolutionary socialism.

We here much liberal nonsense about how there should be a "plurality" of views, or that imposing one's line is "dictatorial" - rubbish.

Our class has objective interests - that is, they are not subjective. When I say one thing and TAT says another, we're not both right. One of us is wrong.

Now, I'm not saying just because I've read Lenin that I have all the answers. But what I do think is that if you seriously want to change the world, then you have to adapt your thinking - think with clarity, conscious of what "their" ideas and interests are, and what "ours" are.

That is why we have the Leninist party.

[SonofRage]

The Leninists parties in this country don't seem to be doing much besides selling their newspapers...

[YKTMX]

The U.S. is a special case, obviously.

No country in the world, apart from the USSR under Stalin ( :P ), has such a history of anti-Leninism.

[Paradox]

But, as I'm sure you're aware, people like you represent a small minority of the movement.

As did the proletariat in Russia at the time of the revolution. Hence the bourgeois democratic nature, hence the problems with the peasants, hence Lenin's ("workers' state") state capitalism, etc., etc. Hence Russia wasn't socialist. I don't think that Lenin wasn't trying to build socialism, I just think his ideas were wrong.

Also, communists in general are a minority within capitalism, but does it mean we aren't going to grow? Does that mean we should give up? Of course not. I'll gladly remain part of the Libertarian Left "minority." Just cuz Leninism is the "majority" now, doesn't mean it's right.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some friends who are quite into Lenin, and Mao as well. They're also very Zapatista. Luckily, we don't get into "ideological" debates, so there hasn't been a problem there yet. And I've actually got a couple of them a little interested in Luxemburg. But they are quite distasteful of Anarchists. There was a guy here a couple of months ago who was an Anarchist. They were cool with him, you know, we were all friends and shit, but when it came to ideology, they'd talk shit. One of them has called me an Anarchist, which I'm not. I guess she assumed that cuz I said that Lenin didn't know anything in response to one of them saying that Luxemburg didn't know anything.

Anyway, yeah, this is a pretty interesting idea. I've thought about it before, and I'd support it. I know a couple of people who've been trying to set something like this up. They've been putting together ideas from Marxism, Anarchism, and Situationist theory. That's still just getting started though, from what they tell me.

[YKTMX]

Hence Russia wasn't socialist. I don't think that Lenin wasn't trying to build socialism, I just think his ideas were wrong.



Yes, you're right. If Lenin and the Bolsheviks had only realised that the isolated efforts of the Russian workers would not be enough, and that revolutions in the advanced countries would be needed to make socialism in a backward country like Rus...oh, right.

:)


Just cuz Leninism is the "majority" now, doesn't mean it's right.


Of course it doesn't. Left-libertarians have the right, and the duty, to try and make their own majority in the movement. No problem there.

[SonofRage]

I don't even think Leninists are in the majority, at least in the US. When I was at the J20 demo in DC there was a black bloc of like 1,000 Anarchists and we dwarfed all the Leninists groups there put together.

There's maybe one Leninist group, the ISO, that even has 1,000 members in the entire country. I think that's significant.

[Monty Cantsin]

are you sure it's safe to assume that all Black Bloc people are anarchists?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:11 AM
There's maybe one Leninist group, the ISO, that even has 1,000 members in the entire country. I think that's significant.
If one wants to consider the "official" Communist Party USA Leninist, then there are two. The CPUSA has about 2,000 members.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't even think Leninists are in the majority, at least in the US. When I was at the J20 demo in DC there was a black bloc of like 1,000 Anarchists and we dwarfed all the Leninists groups there put together.

There's maybe one Leninist group, the ISO, that even has 1,000 members in the entire country. I think that's significant.

SWP? WWP? PSL? RCP?

They each have several hundred members.

Are there some hotbeds of anarchists that I'm missing out on?

These groups also have alot of supporters which is why they can (and do!) raise tens of thousands of dollars every year.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Anarchists have no base, and are never going to have, in the working class.

In some countries during the last century, "anarchists" certainly did have a large base "in the working class".

I do not see how you can "rule that out" in this century.


In fact, if I'm at a movement event and I see or hear them, I want to chew my own arm off - it's like a chemical reaction. An in- built working class antipathy to the petty bourgeois lifestyleism of those fuckers.

There are actually a fair number of "anarchists" who don't like "lifestyleism" any more than you do. One anarchist wrote a whole book bitterly attacking lifestyleism as a betrayal of anarchism.

On the other hand, it might be helpful if you offered a more substantive critique of lifestyleism than simply attributing it to your "proletarian instincts".

What is it about those people that "really bothers you"? Is it class privilege per se that "sticks in your throat" or are there things they choose to do that you "can't stand"?

I can tell you what bothers me about lifestyleists: their fanatical "moralism" is something that I heartily dislike.

One of them once called me "a Nazi" for eating meat...overlooking the fact that the world's most famous vegetarian was a fellow named Adolph Hitler. :o


I don't like the way they speak, I don't like how they dress, I don't like how they behave. I don't want anything to do with them.

Well, as you prefer. :lol:

But here, I think, a more politically coherent critique is necessary.


And it's not because 'we' are some kind of entrenched elite - who RS expects to 'die out'. Working class people who break with the ruling ideology, all over the world, come to 'Leninism' because it represents the truth of their actual experience.

No. In the last century, Leninism represented the only coherent "alternative" to bourgeois ideology...and that's why rebellious workers turned towards it.

And when they discovered that the "alternative" was fake, then they just as quickly turned away from it.

They discovered, through their own experiences, that the despotism of capital was preferable to the despotism of the Party.

The surviving Leninist parties in the west are so tiny as to be politically invisible. All of them put together couldn't fill up a modern "mega-church" auditorium.

I see nothing to suggest that this historical slide to extinction will be reversed. As your own posts have repeatedly demonstrated, all you can do is just repeat the "holy wisdom" of the last century.

To you personally, Trotsky is "still alive" and "relevant" to the present and future.

What foolishness! :(


First, Marx said that the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class. This is fundamental. Most workers most of the time accept these ideas - some may sway left or right, some have a "collection" of disparate or contrary views, but basically they accept these ideas almost without thinking.

That famous "quip" by Marx was unusually "static" for him...that is, it did not take into account how the "ideas of the ruling class" are attacked and weakened in the decades preceding the overthrow of an old ruling class.

The "ideological supremacy" of the Czarist aristocracy in Russian was attacked in words for nearly a century before it was overthrown in February and March of 1917.

Nor was it simply a narrow elite that overthrew that aristocracy -- it was perhaps the numerically largest popular insurrection in recorded history. The ideas came from a small educated elite...but the actions came from the masses. And without any Party to "lead them".

Even in the face of such directly contradictory evidence, Lenin continued to assert -- and all Leninists have agreed thereafter -- that the masses "cannot really understand" what needs to be done. They are "always too backward".

Thus the "leading role of the Party" is the central dogma of the Leninist paradigm.

You simply can't be a Leninist in any meaningful sense of the word unless you accept that idea.

Your increasingly pressing dilemma is that more and more people reject that idea.

Not just "petty bourgeois anarchists" but the masses of working people in every advanced capitalist country.

You stand in front of people and say "follow me!" And people laugh. Or become openly hostile. Or mostly just walk away.

No matter what you promise, no sensible person wants a Party despotism any more (with or without a "Great Leader").


The practice of democratic centralism basically says that everything in the political and economic world should be fully discussed within the party. When the party comes to its decision, the "line" taken is the "party line", which means that even those members who argued against the position taken need to publicly accept it. Now, this doesn't mean these people will be victimised or "brainwashed" to support that view, it just means they need to submit the will of the majority of their comrades.

What it means is that you are making intellectual dishonesty the "price" of party membership.

You demand that people get up in public and utter what they know is bollocks "as if it were true".

Your party becomes a collective of liars.

Especially after all the people who insist on being publicly honest about their views quit or get expelled.

The idea of telling people the truth as best you can -- which I think is the first duty of a revolutionary -- is abandoned in favor of articulating the Party's line "as best you can".

No different than any other "public relations" job!

Except the pay is not as good. :lol:

I also note that you carefully passed over the role of the Party's leadership in deciding what that "line" is going to be.

Just as the Party "leads the workers", the Party's leadership "leads the Party".

There's nothing "democratic" about "democratic centralism"...except perhaps in a Hegelian sense. You know, where he "uses dialectics" to verbally "transform" the Prussian despotism into the "highest form of democracy". :lol:


Think about the practice of unions, and particularly strike action. If 66% of the union membership votes to withdraw its labour, then that motion is passed. Now, does the 33% who voted against strike action not have to strike as well? Of course they do, or the the strike would be completely ineffectual. This is "democratic centralism". Nothing more, nothing less.

Leninists frequently produce this "example" of "democratic centralism" and claim that this is "how they really function".

In fact, of course, the "example" is irrelevant and the claim is entirely false.

A revolutionary group is not a trade union and its activities are far more complex than a simple vote to strike or not strike.

A revolutionary group must deal with really complicated questions that rarely admit of such simple "yes or no" answers. If it is really part of a revolutionary class, then the struggle over "what is to be done" must include the participation of that class.

Deciding things like this in a "Central Committee Meeting" or even a "Party Congress" is just play-acting.

We'll tell the masses to do this and they'll just do it. :lol:

As to your claim that a "strike vote" is "like democratic centralism", you are simply presuming on the "backwardness" of the people on this board.

Did Lenin convene a "Congress" of the Bolshevik Party to authorize his October coup? Or even a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet?

Nah.

What really happens under "democratic centralism" is that the Party leadership issues a decree and the membership is expected to "just do it". Now and then, a subsequent "Party Congress" is convened to retroactively "approve" the decree.

A trade union leadership that operated under "democratic centralism" would call a strike first and then ask for a vote of the membership "approving" what the leadership had already done.


The Leninist party, by organizing the most class conscious workers, along with other groups such as student, intellectuals etc, aims to give the class struggle focus - a revolutionary focus.

Yes, that's the claim. But with a few rare exceptions in the last century, the "focus" of nearly all Leninist parties has been a reformist focus.

Oh sure, plenty of rhetoric about "revolution"...combined with practical support for this or that "representative" of the "progressive wing" of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

I don't know which "vanguard Party" you personally hang out with. But I'm willing to wager that if they have a website, I could probably find some pretty grim stuff there in fairly short order.

Reformism is what western Leninist parties are "really good at".


But what I do think is that if you seriously want to change the world, then you have to adapt your thinking - think with clarity, conscious of what "their" ideas and interests are, and what "ours" are.

Who would disagree? The problem is that your idea of what is "in our interests" -- a Party despotism -- does not seem to me to be "in our interests" at all.

On what grounds are we to accept your proposition that "your despotism" will be "nicer" than the despotism under which we presently groan?

Is a "kinder and gentler" class society to be preferred to communism?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Jimmie Higgins]

And it's not because 'we' are some kind of entrenched elite - who RS expects to 'die out'. Working class people who break with the ruling ideology, all over the world, come to 'Leninism' because it represents the truth of their actual experience.

No. In the last century, Leninism represented the only coherent "alternative" to bourgeois ideology...and that's why rebellious workers turned towards it.

And when they discovered that the "alternative" was fake, then they just as quickly turned away from it.

They discovered, through their own experiences, that the despotism of capital was preferable to the despotism of the Party.I agree to a certain extent.


The surviving Leninist parties in the west are so tiny as to be politically invisible. All of them put together couldn't fill up a modern "mega-church" auditorium.

I see nothing to suggest that this historical slide to extinction will be reversed. Here you are simply imagining a hiostory that will fit your formulations. On what do you base this "slide"? In the US, the low point of this "slide would have occoured several decades ago. With he original CP tieing itself to both Moscow and the Democrats, it made itself irrelevent and we saw the emergence of anarchist, maoist and trotskyist groups - all of wich were much smaller than radical groups of the previous generation. Maoist groups intitially surged and still hold some sway over US radicalism, but have stagnated and declined since the 70s. Anarchist and Trotskyist groups remained small until the 90s when there was a general increase in all radical groups and we saw the emergence of the black block and trotskyist groups like the ISO which probably had about 100 memebers at the beginning of the 90s.


As your own posts have repeatedly demonstrated, all you can do is just repeat the "holy wisdom" of the last century.

To you personally, Trotsky is "still alive" and "relevant" to the present and future.

What foolishness! :(What's foolish is not learning from the past and having to reinvent the wheel each generation. Yes, it is foolish to blindly follow any one induviduals ideas as "holy", but to say that Luxembourg's "Reform or Revolution", Lennin's "Left-win Communism" or whatnot have no bearing on today is rediculous and foolhardy. The debates of the last century about if socialism can exist in one country, if reforms and parlementary politics can lead to "socialism", and so on will come up with future movements and if you, like me, do not want to see future movements become another Russia or China, then it is imperitive that we look at the lessons and mistakes of the past.

The anti-globalization movements of the 90s are a clear example of why we should be critically looking at the past movements. Many of the anti-globalization "leaders" thought they were "onto something new" only to be derailed and taken by suprise by things like "imperialism" that earlier radicals had already discovered.

On a side-note I recently watched the documentary "the take" by Naiomi Klein where in the first 15 minuted she says "We discovered in Argentina, a totally new form or organizing; workers were taking over their workplaces". - sheesh, yeah that's totally new, no one ever thought of that before.


Even in the face of such directly contradictory evidence, Lenin continued to assert -- and all Leninists have agreed thereafter -- that the masses "cannot really understand" what needs to be done. They are "always too backward".

Thus the "leading role of the Party" is the central dogma of the Leninist paradigm.

You simply can't be a Leninist in any meaningful sense of the word unless you accept that idea.

Your increasingly pressing dilemma is that more and more people reject that idea.As they should reject the idea as you put it, "People are always too backward". But Lennin Lennin moved away from the idea as you stated it between 1905 (when he wrote that) and 1917. He didn't create the soviets, workers did, he argued for worker's power through the soviets and was able to gain the confidence of workers through doing this.


No matter what you promise, no sensible person wants a Party despotism any more (with or without a "Great Leader").THis is the essential straw-man argument that you share with many anarchists. Aside from stalinists and perhapse the RCP, I don't think any party today has ever advocate4d "despotism of the party". You seem to confuse Russian Marxist-Lenninism with Lenninism.



The practice of democratic centralism basically says that everything in the political and economic world should be fully discussed within the party. When the party comes to its decision, the "line" taken is the "party line", which means that even those members who argued against the position taken need to publicly accept it. Now, this doesn't mean these people will be victimised or "brainwashed" to support that view, it just means they need to submit the will of the majority of their comrades.

What it means is that you are making intellectual dishonesty the "price" of party membership.

You demand that people get up in public and utter what they know is bollocks "as if it were true".

Your party becomes a collective of liars.

Especially after all the people who insist on being publicly honest about their views quit or get expelled.

The idea of telling people the truth as best you can -- which I think is the first duty of a revolutionary -- is abandoned in favor of articulating the Party's line "as best you can".

No different than any other "public relations" job!

Except the pay is not as good. :lol:Democratic centralism is a way for a revolutionary party to maintain both democracy and unity of action. Personally I think it's a good way to do things because if you disagree, get voted down, yes you have to go along with the majority, but you can still argue for something else and try to convince people you are correct.

Teh rest of your arguments here are more straw-men much like when a reactionary tells you that you don't really want democracy and socialism you want a totalitarian govertnment.

I'm sure there are some poorly and undemocratically organized groups out there, but I have been involved with several groups and one was secrative and had little democratic process as far as I could tell, one had consensus voting (which in practctice ment that a clique of people decided something and then stuck to it until everyone else gave up and agreed with them) and one had democratic centralism and there were requent debates and then reassesments after an action was taken.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Really? Like what? Anarchists have no base, and are never going to have, in the working class.

we had a rather large base in spain, you know those regions of aragon and catalonia, they have a few million people. :)


P.S I once had an hour long debate with an Anarchist because he saw me drinking a bottle of Pepsi. He said I was 'perpetuating class society' by doing so. He had went to private school and then Cambridge...

yes he sounds like a dumbass. but we "anarchists" are SERIOUS, we dont put up with that lifestylist bullshit and we dont think those lifestylists are anarchists.



I don't like the way they speak

i speak english?


I don't like how they dress

whats wrong with wearing pants and shirts? :lol:


your stereotyping us as crimethinc'rs, we arent lifestylists, we dont want lifestylists in our movement.

[YKTMX]

On the other hand, it might be helpful if you offered a more substantive critique of lifestyleism than simply attributing it to your "proletarian instincts".

What is it about those people that "really bothers you"? Is it class privilege per se that "sticks in your throat" or are there things they choose to do that you "can't stand"?


Well, firstly, it's their anti-working class attitude. I hear it ALL the time. Working class people are racist, stupid, mysoginist, they're all 'bought off' etc. And this isn't a view pecuilar to a few of them. These views are quite rampant. I mean, I've also met people who aren't Anarchists who hold them, but not nearly as many.

They think their 'existence' is somehow a threat to the system i.e just by acting this way, or dressing this way, they are somehow threatening capitalism. It's bollocks.

They're also fond, like lots of you guys, of giving 'history' lessons, whereby Lenin is responsible for Stalinism, the defeat of the Spanish Republic (yes, seriously), the rise of Hitler, the Black Death (OK, not that) etc.


I can tell you what bothers me about lifestyleists: their fanatical "moralism" is something that I heartily dislike.


I actually don't mind a bit of moralism, as long as it's grounded in a serious materialist analysis. I mean, we can all recount the economic theories of Marx, but I think we need to restate how fundamentally 'immoral' he showed capitalism is.

But yes, 'moralism' from these guys is hard to stomach.


The surviving Leninist parties in the west are so tiny as to be politically invisible. All of them put together couldn't fill up a modern "mega-church" auditorium.


Well, suffice to say I don't accept this, but I don't want to get into a debate about numbers of members each group has.

Rifondazione has 300,000 - so unless RS knows a really big church...


it was perhaps the numerically largest popular insurrection in recorded history. The ideas came from a small educated elite...but the actions came from the masses. And without any Party to "lead them".


Yes, and where did this glorious group of 'unlead' Masses lead it?

Russian involvement in the slaughter continued, private ownership contined, the land issue wasn't addressed. The February revolutions are a great example of revolutionary will without revolutionary theory.


Thus the "leading role of the Party" is the central dogma of the Leninist paradigm.

You simply can't be a Leninist in any meaningful sense of the word unless you accept that idea.


I do accept it. Wholly and unapologetically.


Your increasingly pressing dilemma is that more and more people reject that idea.

You assert this all the time, what's the evidence?


Not just "petty bourgeois anarchists" but the masses of working people in every advanced capitalist country.


Most working people reject coherent politics of any type nowadays. It's difficult to get them to vote never mind join a political party. I hardly think you can blame the general malaise in advanced capitalism on the collapse of the 'Leninist paradigm'.

But then again...


No matter what you promise, no sensible person wants a Party despotism any more (with or without a "Great Leader").


Yes, I agree. No 'sensible person' wants it, which is why no one advocates it.


Did Lenin convene a "Congress" of the Bolshevik Party to authorize his October coup?

:lol: "Yes, we would like to welcome all the spies from the Russian State Police, as well as our comrades from the White Armies and the Provisional government to this congress to annouce that the Bolshevik Party will be leading a proletarian insurrection on the said date. I hope you all get your newsletters with further details"

:blink:


Yes, that's the claim. But with a few rare exceptions in the last century, the "focus" of nearly all Leninist parties has been a reformist focus.


Our debates on this issue are always confusing because we differ on which parties have been 'Leninist'. You take murderers, liars, imperialists, friends of presidents Mao, Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot and Ceaucescu on their word, believing them to be Marxists. I don't. And so any party which consciously deceived the masses into believing they were is a party lead by liars and frauds and not to be taken seriously. And not a Leninist.

And this isn't, as you present it, some factional dispute 'within Leninism.' It's up to people to make up their own minds and find the true objective analysis, and decide whether Mao (and the other) was a Leninist, or whether he was a representative of a counter-revolutionary anti-Leninist strata which covered itself in the Red Flag because it was expedient to do so.

One of these is 'true' - regardless of what me or you say on the matter.


Is a "kinder and gentler" class society to be preferred to communism?


I have nothing to gain, directly or indirectly, from committing a large part of my life and my future to creating a new class society. If I thought I was doing so, I would give up immediately.

I happen to think I'm not.

[Martin Blank]

Even though I am neither a practicioner nor a supporter of the "democent" practiced by "Leninist" organizations, I spent some time in and around such organizations.


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Think about the practice of unions, and particularly strike action. If 66% of the union membership votes to withdraw its labour, then that motion is passed. Now, does the 33% who voted against strike action not have to strike as well? Of course they do, or the the strike would be completely ineffectual. This is "democratic centralism". Nothing more, nothing less.[/b]

I am quite familiar with this argument. I've even made it myself in the past. Thus, I would advise caution on using this analogy, YKTMX. A "strike vote" is precisely that: a vote on a specific action. If the extent of the "democent" practiced by "Leninists" (of the "official", Maoist, Trotskyist, etc., varieties) was limited to questions such as this, it might not have a lot of the negative connotations it has today.

Unfortunately, almost all of the groups calling themselves "democent" not only demand discipline over questions of action (immediate and longer term), but also over questions of doctrine, history, philosophy, etc. This is where the problem with this practice comes in. On the one hand, most self-described "Leninists" correctly state over and over again that a critically-thinking and self-acting proletariat is necessary for the victory over capitalism; on the other hand, almost all of these same "Leninists" then demand that proletarians suspend that critical thinking and uncritically accept a "line" of doctrine as admittance into their organization.

To put it another way: Can you imagine how Teamsters would react if they were told by the International leadership that they had to defend all of the decisions and actions of Jimmy Hoffa in order to remain members of that union?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Did Lenin convene a "Congress" of the Bolshevik Party to authorize his October coup? Or even a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet?

Nah.

Well, yes and no. The Seventh All-Russia Conference of the Bolsheviks did adopt resolutions supporting armed insurrection, all power to the Soviets, etc., and vested the Central Committee with executive authority to coordinate related work. But, no, there was no "Congress" to set the specific date; there was only a Central Committee meeting attended by members of the Piter City Committee in mid-October on the issue.

Interestingly, though, this position (that a "Congress" of some type is needed to authorize the initiation of a revolution) is similar to that taken by Trotsky during the months prior to the October Revolution. In his case, though, he wanted to take it to the Second Congress of Soviets for approval.


redstar2000
A trade union leadership that operated under "democratic centralism" would call a strike first and then ask for a vote of the membership "approving" what the leadership had already done.

This is done all the time, RedStar -- both calling strikes and calling them off.

Miles

[Alexknucklehead]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 12:07 AM

Really? Like what? Anarchists have no base, and are never going to have, in the working class.

we had a rather large base in spain, you know those regions of aragon and catalonia, they have a few million people. :)


We still do, many working class communities in Spain are still very much anarchist sympathetic. Not the mention the base of majority worker members of the CNT in particular worplaces, I think even the majority of Madrid transport system workers was one?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
In fact, if I'm at a movement event and I see or hear them, I want to chew my own arm off - it's like a chemical reaction. An in built working class antipathy to the petty bourgeois, lifestyleism of those fuckers.

It is funny you choose to label Anarchists "petty bourgeois." It really is.

After all, how many "proles" have led Leninist parties? ....how many "proles" have have even managed to be part of a Leninist parties leadership?

Call them petty bourgeois if you wish, but at least they are petty bourgeois groups that don't wish to dictate to the working class.


There has only been one Communist revolution in the last century, in which the Anarchists played a not insignificant part. Sadly, for them, as seems to be in their nature, they ended up heading over to the other side when it came to the crunch. Shame.

There were Anarchists in Russia, China, Cuba and probably all the other countries that had "Communist" revolutions. All these countries then went on to persecute Anarchists after the revolution.

Now the Anarchists have never made a secret of what they want, "worker power" and this leaves with only one conclusion to draw about these revolutions. They didn't have "worker power."

What is also worrying is the acceptance of this killing in the Communist movement. Leninists constantly label the Kronsdat uprising Anarchist (which it wasn't) so to somehow justify the brutal suppression of the Kronsdat sailors and other workers.

.....and you moan about people proposing the death penalty for rapists and murderers when you will quite happily play the apologist for Lenin and co's suppression of the Russian workers.


But, as I'm sure you're aware, people like you represent a small minority of the movement. And it's not because 'we' are some kind of entrenched elite - who RS expects to 'die out'. Working class people who break with the ruling ideology, all over the world, come to 'Leninism' because it represents the truth of their actual experience.

I am a working class person who has "broken with the ruling ideology" and I find all strands of Leninism repugnant.

[SonofRage]

Redstar2000 has indirectly mentioned this piece by Murray Bookchin, so I thought I'd link it here for those who are interested in reading an Anarchist critique of "lifestyle Anarchism."

Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/bookchin/sp001512/)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)What's foolish is not learning from the past and having to reinvent the wheel each generation.[/b]

We do have to "reinvent the wheel" since all the Leninist "wheels" turned out to be square and thus useless for our purpose -- the self-emancipation of the working class.

We need something completely different from what was done in the last century.

Trying to "revive Leninism" is as foolish as trying to "revive" Lamarck's theories of evolution.

Those theories have been discredited.


He [Lenin] didn't create the soviets, workers did; he argued for worker's power through the soviets and was able to gain the confidence of workers through doing this.

Indeed. But the slogan "all power to the soviets" turned out to be a lie.

By early 1918, before the civil war began, the soviets had become ceremonial bodies that existed only to "formally ratify" the decrees of the Bolshevik Party.


This is the essential straw-man argument that you share with many anarchists. Aside from stalinists and perhaps the RCP, I don't think any party today has ever advocated "despotism of the party". You seem to confuse Russian Marxist-Leninism with Leninism.

There is no straw in this fellow; he's as big and mean as an NFL lineman.

When Leninists (of any variety) speak of the "leading role of the Party in socialist society", they mean a party despotism...whether they actually "use the words" or not.

Of course, they deny this. In the case of young Leninists, it's because they're naive. Veteran Leninists are just lying...and they know it. If successful, they intend to run the whole show.

Avakian, to his credit, is one of the few Leninists who's not ashamed of the word "despotism"...though he promises us an "enlightened" one.

I can imagine. :lol:


Democratic centralism is a way for a revolutionary party to maintain both democracy and unity of action.

That assertion is not a response to my charge of intellectual dishonesty.

If you get up in public and argue on behalf of a position that you know damn well is crap "because it's the Party line", then you are a fucking liar.

That is what "democratic centralism" really means in practice.

Why should I or anyone even care what you say about that line behind the closed doors of a Party meeting?

Maybe you can get the "line" changed; maybe you can't; maybe they'll just expel your sorry ass; whatever.

Why should we care? To us, you're a liar.


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
They [lifestyleists] are also fond, like lots of you guys, of giving 'history' lessons, whereby Lenin is responsible for Stalinism, the defeat of the Spanish Republic (yes, seriously), the rise of Hitler, the Black Death (OK, not that) etc.

One does not customarily consult the young for knowledge of historical events...to them the world "began" with their own adolescence.

It's a matter of historical record that Lenin and Stalin worked very closely together after October 1917 and that Stalin borrowed much of his rhetoric and many of his ideas directly from Lenin.

That does not make Lenin "responsible" for Stalin or "Stalinism"...unless one wishes to embrace a "devil theory" of history.

Holding Lenin "responsible" for the "rise of Hitler" or the "defeat of the Spanish Republic" is just childishness. Those events took place after Lenin was dead.

It would be the equivalent of blaming the U.S. invasion of Iraq on George Washington.

It is unfortunate, in some respects, that people are largely ignorant of 20th century "left" history...which is responsible for many silly statements made by many people.

But, in a way, this is a distraction. Even if people don't know the details of the careers of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, et.al., they nevertheless know what they don't want.

The don't want a Leninist Party despotism, period.

And they don't see any reason to make any distinctions about that; they don't care whose large picture is mounted behind the platform or which books are for sale in the Party bookstore.


I actually don't mind a bit of moralism, as long as it's grounded in a serious materialist analysis.

Well, 20th century Leninism was very puritanical so I'm not surprised by your admission.

Needless to add, that just makes your prospects even worse. :lol:


Rifondazione has 300,000 - so unless RS knows a really big church...

This would presumably refer to an Italian Trotskyist party, right?

How many people live in Italy these days? How many are politically active "on the left"? How accurate is this "official number"?

American "mega-churches" have congregations approaching 100,000...though they don't all come to church at the same time. I believe their main auditoriums seat between 10,000 and 15,000.

In the U.S. there are no Leninist parties with more than 1,000 or 2,000 members...and some of them probably have only a few hundred members or even less.

While the population of this country is currently approaching 300,000,000.

So they really have no political significance here at all. As far as the general public is concerned, they're completely "off the radar".

Each of them solemnly assures their dwindling band of supporters that "this will change" because they have "the only correct politics".

For some reason, that line just doesn't "work" like it used to. :lol:


Russian involvement in the slaughter continued, private ownership continued, the land issue wasn't addressed. The February revolutions are a great example of revolutionary will without revolutionary theory.

No, not exactly. The "land issue" was not addressed legally...but the peasantry did seize the land illegally and generally killed any big landowner that they happened to catch.

Russian involvement in the war did formally continue...but so did the massive desertions of the peasant conscripts.

And of course "private ownership continued"...it was 1789 there.


You assert this all the time, what's the evidence?

Your self-evident political insignificance.

The young people coming into the "left" these days are, by and large, inclined towards anarchism...including those lifestyleists whom you find so distressing.

You may hope that they will "move on to Leninism", but I see no justification for that hope. All you can tell them is "Stalinism is not real Leninism and Trotskyism is real Leninism".

Why should they care about that?

Anymore than they would care about "real Christianity" vs. "fake Christianity"? :lol:


Most working people reject coherent politics of any type nowadays. It's difficult to get them to vote, never mind join a political party.

Yes, they've learned through historical experience that bourgeois "elections" are irrelevant to their lives...just like Leninism.

In fact, pretty much all of what we refer to as "politics" is either bourgeois or is derived from bourgeois models.

Why should any intelligent worker give a rat's ass about any of that crap?


Our debates on this issue are always confusing because we differ on which parties have been 'Leninist'. You take murderers, liars, imperialists, friends of presidents Mao, Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot and Ceaucescu on their word, believing them to be Marxists. I don't. And so any party which consciously deceived the masses into believing they were is a party lead by liars and frauds and not to be taken seriously. And not a Leninist.

Well, let's be precise. I don't consider Leninism to be Marxist in any reasonable sense of the word.

Otherwise, you're right: I consider all of those parties that claimed the inheritance of Lenin to have been "acting in good faith"...whether Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist, or whatever.

You consider Trotsky to be the only "legitimate" heir of Lenin and denounce all the rest as literal "bastards".

In addition to which, I'm sure you also have a list of "fake Trotskyist" parties...which are likewise "not real Leninists". If you are like other Trotskyists that I've encountered, that list is not a short one. :lol:

You must realize that this is an entirely parochial view that people outside the Leninist paradigm consider trivial distinctions.

I have no reason to think that the leadership of any Trotskyist party does not share Lenin's own conceit: only our Party is fit to rule.

That option is historically no longer "on the table".

Deal with it. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:58 PM
That option is historically no longer "on the table".

Deal with it. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So Leninism isn’t a viable route. Let’s assume that for the moment. My question to you is simple – where to now?

Because as much as I may disagree with Maoists and Stalinists I do recognise that they are revolutionary ideologies. That’s probably the best that can be said for them. This is in sharp contrast to the pre-Lenin Marxism that you and others appear to subscribe to today. That pretty much amounts to sitting on our asses and waiting for change.

When Marx sat down, observed the material reality of his day and extrapolated his theories the material conditions were ripe for revolution. He was quite certain that capitalism was on the way out, a very reasonable analysis at the time. That Marxism was revolutionary, it advocated the organisation of the workers for the imminent battle.

But we know that this did not happen, capitalism evolved and the material conditions started looking a lot less rosy. Lenin attempted to overthrow capitalism where it was weakest in the hope that it would spread to the developed world. Everything associated with Lenin – in particular vanguardism and the role of the party, democratic centralism – were attempts to adapt Marxism to these imperfect material conditions.

I’m sure we disagree on why this hasn’t worked and I’m not interested that that argument right now. What I do note is that the material conditions of today do not resemble those of Marx’s era. Take Marx’s works out of the 19th century and all you’re left with is historical materialism and a series of academic works. Essential understanding to be sure, but hardly revolutionary in this day and age.

I eagerly await this new take on Marxism that you predict but unless it agrees with Lenin that the revolution can occur in imperfect material conditions then we need not bother. After all, communism is inevitable, right?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:42 PM

So Leninism isn’t a viable route. Let’s assume that for the moment. My question to you is simple – where to now?
I think redstar gave an answere here: A New Kind of Communist Organization (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).

Personally, although I'm not a member, I have a lot of hope in Platformist groups like NEFAC (http://www.nefac).

For now, in addition to my work in the IWW, I'm choosing to do a lot of my other work as a member of Bring the Ruckus (http://www.agitatorindex.org) and the Direct Action Tendency.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
What's foolish is not learning from the past and having to reinvent the wheel each generation.

We do have to "reinvent the wheel" since all the Leninist "wheels" turned out to be square and thus useless for our purpose -- the self-emancipation of the working class.

We need something completely different from what was done in the last century.
So what do you propose then? I have looked at your blog and all that I can tell is you think that writing in your blog is the best thing you can do for revolution.


Trying to "revive Leninism" is as foolish as trying to "revive" Lamarck's theories of evolution.

Those theories have been discredited.This argument is much like crationists who show how one theory of evolution contradicts another or how one branch of theory is disand conclude that evolution is not a realistic theory. What I take from "Lenninism" is that revolutionaries need to organize themselves and this is what they did in Russia and a little too late in Germany.



He [Lenin] didn't create the soviets, workers did; he argued for worker's power through the soviets and was able to gain the confidence of workers through doing this.

Indeed. But the slogan "all power to the soviets" turned out to be a lie.

By early 1918, before the civil war began, the soviets had become ceremonial bodies that existed only to "formally ratify" the decrees of the Bolshevik Party.I agree with you and although I do think the initial revolution was a sucsess I don't think "socialism" ever made it to the 1920s. But your argument seems to be that it is inherent that this would turn out this way because of the nature of "Lenninist parties" whereas I would claim that the conditions in russia where there was a small industrialized workforce led to the slippery sloap of the party taking power "in the name of workers" and then taking "war powers" and so on.

What could the russians have done differently in the same material conditions? If another kind of party or revolutionary organization would have been better, please do tell.


When Leninists (of any variety) speak of the "leading role of the Party in socialist society", they mean a party despotism...whether they actually "use the words" or not.

Avakian, to his credit, is one of the few Leninists who's not ashamed of the word "despotism"...though he promises us an "enlightened" one.

I can imagine. :lol:Yeah I don't really want to imagine a world run by the RCP. I think the politics of the RCP and their dangerous ideas that workers are "too bought out" is the root of their anti-workerism (i.e. that they know better than workers how to run society for workers.



Democratic centralism is a way for a revolutionary party to maintain both democracy and unity of action.

That assertion is not a response to my charge of intellectual dishonesty.

If you get up in public and argue on behalf of a position that you know damn well is crap "because it's the Party line", then you are a fucking liar.Sorry, that's democracy baby. If you don't agree with a party's basic historical analysis, then don't join that party in the first place. If you agree with the basic conclusions of the party, and have a vote on representative or decisions by the party, then I don't see how loosing a vote on one action is undemocratic.


Why should we care? To us, you're a liar.Why should we care if someone has all the right ideas but is too in love with thoes ideas to organize and work with other people in fear that his ideas may be voted down?


It's a matter of historical record that Lenin and Stalin worked very closely together after October 1917 and that Stalin borrowed much of his rhetoric and many of his ideas directly from Lenin.Stalin also borrowed rehtoric from Marx? I guess Marxism is just as dicredited as the Russian revolution.


The don't want a Leninist Party despotism, period.I don't want dictatorship of the party either, oh wait that's right I'm a naieve liar (sigh).


In the U.S. there are no Leninist parties with more than 1,000 or 2,000 members...and some of them probably have only a few hundred members or even less.

While the population of this country is currently approaching 300,000,000.

So they really have no political significance here at all. As far as the general public is concerned, they're completely "off the radar".THere is also no labor or progressive electoral parties in the US. THe left in general is weak in the US and "off the radar"... I guess we can't blame lenninist parties for that (although the CP thouroughly discreditied itself through following stalinist dictates).


Each of them solemnly assures their dwindling band of supporters that "this will change" because they have "the only correct politics".No, this will change because anarchists and trotskyist and left reformist groups are on the rise in the US (yeah 1,000 is a large lenninist party or anarchist group for that matter, but this is compared to probably a tenth of that many members 10 years ago).

US radical political history is characterized by rapid up and downsurges in radical activity. THe 20s were a time of repression against radicals and the failure of the trade-union movement; 10 years later there was the CIO and rank-and-file strikes and a huge increase in the numbers and influence of the CP. THe 50s were infamous for anti-communism, but the late 60s and early 70s saw a huge upserge in radical activity and maoist and anarchist orgs.

[YKTMX]

This would presumably refer to an Italian Trotskyist party, right?


They're a reorientated Stalinist party - their name means 'Communist Refoundation'. I'm surprised you're ignorant about them, they're a big thing on the European 'New Left'-anti-globalization movement.


How many are politically active "on the left"? How accurate is this "official number"?


Italy is probably the most radicalised society in Westrn Europe. RC is a major part of this. They have a daily newspaper, lots of elected officials, real presence in communities and TU's. I seen this myself when I was in Italy. Quite thrilling.

click (http://bellaciao.org/en/art_el.php?id_article=5722) That's the story of one particuarly amazing RC eletoral victory.


You must realize that this is an entirely parochial view that people outside the Leninist paradigm consider trivial distinctions.

I have no reason to think that the leadership of any Trotskyist party does not share Lenin's own conceit: only our Party is fit to rule.

That option is historically no longer "on the table".


Well, that's your opinion. As I said, the U.S is a special case. But, it's a fact that here in Europe, Marxist politics are, in general, recovering. And the theories of Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and the rest have a big play in that.

I reject your analysis that Leninism has 'collapsed' not out of some 'religious' attachments as your stupidly assert. I reject because it contradicts my day-to-day experience.


You're quite fond of giving cod psychological portraits of people and theories, would you mind if I gave my own two cents on yourself and your thinking?

I get the sense you're quite a cut off figure (politically speaking), in the most politically unrepresentative place in the world. You project your own angst about the collapse of Maoism onto others, describing it, falsely, as a collapse of Leninism. You've latched onto a part of the movement in states (Anarchism) which is important and influential in some sections there.

But you've failed to realise that what is happening there is not what is happening in other places. Hugo Chavez is reading and quoting Marx and Trostky, not Bakunin and Proudhon. The Guerilla movements across the world are struggling with their own, albeit faulty, brands of Leninism. Across Europe, in France, Italy, Germany, 'Leninists' are playing big, big roles in both reforging left electoral alternatives AND building the new mass movements from below - against the war, G8 ecetera.

All the while you procalim that 'Leninism' is dying. It simply doesn't wash with anyone who's living in the real world.

I respect the need to 'rethink' the Marxist project. But what you seem to be doing immersing yourself in is self-flagellation. We KNOW the Cultural revolution was a bad thing, it's OK. We get it. We got it back then, but you weren't willing to listen.

Let it go.

:)

[UltraLeftGerry]

You're quite fond of giving cod psychological portraits of people and theories, would you mind if I gave my own two cents on yourself and your thinking?


This method is sometimes appropriate and sometimes in appropriate. I don't think every young Leninist is totally intellectually dishonest and lying. A case could be made of trying to get into the heads of Leninists who have been around a long while. Gerry Healey's nonsense is a good example of this. I could be wrong but I don't think the RCP always had a personality quote around Avakian. The degeneration of the RCP into a full blown cult may have much to do with revolutionaries getting old and jaded. The party becomes a 9 to 5 job. I don't think it's fair to do this to RS2000. He was not analyzing the thought process of every Leninist, only those in a position of authority. He's clearly not looking to exercise authority over anyone, so there's not much to be gained by doing this. Just for the record, I think perfomring a psychological profile on anyone in a position of authority is a good thing. Leninist, bourgeois or whatever.



But you've failed to realise that what is happening there is not what is happening in other places. Hugo Chavez is reading and quoting Marx and Trostky, not Bakunin and Proudhon. The Guerilla movements across the world are struggling with their own, albeit faulty, brands of Leninism. Across Europe, in France, Italy, Germany, 'Leninists' are playing big, big roles in both reforging left electoral alternatives AND building the new mass movements from below - against the war, G8 ecetera.

Leninists are indeed playing a role, in bourgeois politics which can be clearly seen. Of course this ignores all of the culture jammers, anarchists and left Marxists who are agitating and educated. There is a very limited history of Communist Parties and their actions under Lenin and before they were Stalinized. Getting the Bolsheviks name out there by using the early Duma may have been a good idea in Russia which was just entering its bourgeois democratic phase, but in the rest of the West the Communist involvment in bourgeois elections has played out. When the PCF and PCI rejected total capitulation to Moscow they moved to the right, not to the left. I would have assumed the rank and file of the party would have skewed left, the leadership probably moved them to the right. The Trotskyist record isn't much better. The SWP is practically reformist and is courting the votes of devout muslims. The CWI is practically a cult as evidenced by the study linked to on RS2000's site.

Hugo Chavez is also a practicing Catholic and has not done anything fundamental to challenge capitalist relations in Venezuela. I'm not saying he's not progressive however. He is taking Venezuela into the 21st century and his reforms have given rise to a form of class consciousness, which could very well get too radical even for him. He's very much a postmodernist leftist. He himself has said we need to find a "socialism for the 21st century." He's been scared off, not surprisingly from being revolutionary, probably due to the USSR experience. Even if Leninism is correct, he would have to be pushed aside and could become counter-revolutionary. He's not going to lead a revolution Marxist or Leninist. That being said, we need more Hugo Chavezs to bring the Third World up to the level of First World. Capitalism must be taken to its highest form before it can expire.



They're a reorientated Stalinist party - their name means 'Communist Refoundation'. I'm surprised you're ignorant about them, they're a big thing on the European 'New Left'-anti-globalization movement.

I've been to Italy and know that they do indeed have a presence. In fact a distant cousin of my ran for them for European parliamentary elections. However, she was in fact a dentist who lived a quite comfortable middle class lifestyle! Do I think middle class people can be revolutionary? Yes I do. That's a debate in of itself, but they sure as hell shouldn't be leading the revolution. They, as you yourself say a reoriented Stalinist party. I'm not so sure why you are so excited by them. They were obviously Moscow loyalists who "kept the faith" even after the USSR collapsed. Do they even advocate revolution or DOP? Do they still have a eurocommunist line? I have no doubt they have youthful and committed activists, but the Central Committee especially if it is still filled with ex-PCI'ers is not going to lead any kind of revolution. Anti-globalization is the left's current raison d'etre. Globalization seems to be inevitable. The protests haven't stopped it, but they have thankfully raised awareness of radical politics for a new generation. I'll add my bold prediction that globalization will re-kickstart the immiseration of the proletariat that seem to have been delayed by the retreat into social democracy. Globalization is having negative effects not only on the third world, but the proletariat of the first world is also suffering.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)So what do you propose then?[/b]

I propose that we "re-invent the wheel"...and this time come up with a round one that really works.

Is that "asking too much"?

Well, it is (perhaps) for those who are still attached to ideas that didn't work.

Leninism had its "big chance" in the last century...and now it's nothing but heaps of stinking rubble.

Even in its own terms, it was a catastrophic failure.

But the "faithful" will not be swayed -- at least some of them -- by anything so vulgar as empirical evidence.

No, they take refuge in "devil theories". It was "Stalin's fault". It was "Tito's fault". It was "Khrushchev's fault". It was "Deng's fault".

Since they cannot perceive history as anything more than the sum of the deeds of "good revolutionary leaders" and "bad counter-revolutionary leaders", their "remedy" is obvious...at least to them.

What we "need" are "really good Leninist leaders" and then everything "will work out just fine".

Attempting to pass this childishness off as "Marxism" is really outrageous.

I doubt if they can get away with it much longer...in any country.


What I take from "Leninism" is that revolutionaries need to organize themselves and this is what they did in Russia and a little too late in Germany.

No one disputes that revolutionaries "need to organize themselves".

The question is should we attempt to do that "like Lenin did"?

Or should we try to do "something completely different"?


But your argument seems to be that it is inherent that this would turn out this way because of the nature of "Leninist parties"...

No one would dispute that objective material conditions prevail...least of all me.

What I'm interested in here is what kind of organization revolutionaries should build? How should it actually work?

The "Leninist Party" is a really rotten idea. Regardless of external material conditions, it inevitably turns into an internal despotism.


Sorry, that's democracy baby. If you don't agree with a party's basic historical analysis, then don't join that party in the first place. If you agree with the basic conclusions of the party, and have a vote on representative or decisions by the party, then I don't see how losing a vote on one action is undemocratic.

It's not a matter of simply "losing a vote". It's getting up in public and knowingly telling a lie because "it's the Party line".

What does that practice turn you into except a practiced liar?

Sure, you can always quit. And people quit Leninist parties all the time!

But then what of your "organization of revolutionaries"? What can you ever expect them to do except become really skillful liars?

What kind of "revolution" would they ever be expected to make?

Is it any wonder that really successful Leninist parties in the "west" easily transformed themselves into major bourgeois reformist parties? A "politics of lies" is sometimes very useful for attaining success in bourgeois elections...provided that you're really "good at it".


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I get the sense you're quite a cut off figure (politically speaking), in the most politically unrepresentative place in the world.

Yes, the "belly of the monster" may well not be the most advantageous vantage point for viewing what is happening elsewhere.

Nor have I ever presumed to comment in detail on the politics of other countries. I have no particular reason to dispute your assertions about some resurgence of interest in Lenin and Trotsky in western Europe...you're a lot closer than I am.

But I will dispute the conclusion that you apparently draw from that: that the European working class "will return to Lenin".

That sounds as plausible to me as the "return of Christ".


Across Europe, in France, Italy, Germany, 'Leninists' are playing big, big roles in both reforging left electoral alternatives AND building the new mass movements from below - against the war, G8 etcetera.

That Leninists would return to bourgeois electoral politics ("like a dog returns to its vomit") is not particularly surprising.

As I've noted before, reformism is "where Leninist parties go to die".

Nor does it surprise me that Leninist parties are still trying to organize "front groups" there...they still do that even here.

Curiously enough, I would be hard pressed to think of even one example of a really successful Leninist "front group". I'm sure it must have worked out at least once...somewhere.

Leninists think this activity "builds respect for the Party" among the masses.

These days, I think the masses catch on pretty quickly about who's really "running the show"...and reach the "cynical" (correct) conclusion.

Those guys are just trying to use this issue to build themselves up. They'd jump to the completely opposite view in a heartbeat if they thought it would help them more.

That's not "respect". :lol:


All the while you proclaim that 'Leninism' is dying. It simply doesn't wash with anyone who's living in the real world.

Well, I can only caution you that immediate appearances can sometimes be deceiving.

As an old Marxist, I am inclined towards "taking the long view" and not being terribly impressed by "the fashions of the day".

History, in the last analysis, really is made by the masses over an extended period of time...and not by a small group of "hyper-active" folks who imagine that what they do "will change the world" in the "next 15 minutes".

The world can be changed...but only when the masses decide to change it.

And, if Marx was right, then they will change it in a direction that will no more be Leninist than it will be Christian.

Those times are over.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nachie]

I'm going to dip my foot very quickly into this thread and then draw it immediately out, as I have no desire to get involved with the bigger debates that have developed.

However, for UltraLeftGerry and others interested in the intersections of anti-Leninist Marxism and Anarchism, I humbly suggest taking a look at the tendency I am involved in: the Red & Anarchist Action Network (RAAN) - for inspiration if not affiliation. This is an ongoing project across the continental US (and hopefully internationally at some point) that has been practically and fluidly applying anarchist-communist unity in both theory and practice for almost four years, now.

There is a website here (http://www.redanarchist.org) that attempts to explain the group's orientation and give a thorough timeline of its history since 2002. I'm also available to talk about the prospects of organizing or acting under the RAAN banner with anyone who wants to PM or e-mail me.

Thanks!

[SonofRage]

I'm glad that RAAN is still around. The website was down for a bit and I thought RAAN was no longer an active project.

[Nachie]

Yes there was an interesting series of problems during a server switch but it's been sorted out, now. Actually I'm pretty glad it happened since it gave the people contributing to the website (myself included) a chance to rebuild it from the ground up with some new features geared towards making the project more accessible to people.

Lots of potential for RAAN in the future, but it depends on people being able to adapt the concept to their own situation and organize/act on it for themselves instead of waiting for someone to come hand them a membership card or newspaper.